f    H  F 


SUGaR  TAPqFF 

opeech   of  J  as.    A.    Garfield 
Feb.    26.    1879. 


UC-NRLF 


B    3    lib    M27 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 

AN  INITIAL  F^OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  INCREASr  T-o   .  °"^-    "^"^   PENALTY 

DAY    InD     TO     J°oo°  "L^^^^  °^  ^"^  '^°URTH 
OVERDUE.  °''    ^"^    SEVENTH     DAY 


LD  21-100ot-8,'34 


IiI:I-7ard  :n 

SXJaA.K    T.A.niFir. 


SPEECH 


OF 


HON.  JAMES  A.  GARFIELD, 

OF    OHIO, 


DELIVERED  GJ  THE 


HOUSE   OF    REPRESENTATIVES, 


Wednesday,  February  26,  1879. 


WASHINGTON. 

1879. 


5>  ^oa  Q^ 


SPEECH 

OF 

HOX.   JAMES  A.   GARFIELD. 


The  House  having  under  consideration  the  bill  (H.  E.  IS"o.  6134)  to  regulate  the 
duties  on  sugar —  " 

Mr.  GARFIELD  said  : 

Mr.  Speaker:  I  regret  that  I  am  not  feeling  well  enough  to  address 
the  House  on  this  subject  to  uiy  own  satisfaction.  By  the  kindness 
of  my  colleague  on  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  [Mr.  Tucker,] 
who  paired  with  me,  I  left  the  House  yesterday  in  consequence  of 
feeling  quite  ill,  and  I  should  not  be  here  to-dav  were  it  not  that  I 
am  charged  with  the  duty  of  presenting  the  bill  approved  by  the 
minority  of  the  committee  ;  but  I  will  try  to  state  the  case  if  I  can 
have  the  forbearance  and  attention  of  the  House. 

It  must  be  manifest  to  every  one  that  any  considerable  change  in 
our  tanif  laws  at  the  present  session  is  impossible ;  and  no  chancre 
whatever  should  be  undertaken  at  this  late  day  unless  demanded  by 
the  most  imperative  necessity.  That  such  a  necessity  exists  for  the 
modification  of  the  tariff  on  sugar  will  appear  further  on. 

The  pending  bill,  like  all  bills  which  relate  to  customs  duties  should 
be  considered  in  its  relation  to  four  great  interests:  the  revenues 
home  industries,  foreign  trade,  and  the  interests  of  consumers.  First' 
as  a  source  of  revenue  for  the  support  of  the  Government,  we  are  re- 
ceiving about  $37,000,000  in  coin  per  annum  from  duties  on  su-ar  in 
Its  various  forms.  That  is  about  one-sixth  of  all  our  revenues°from 
all  sources.  The  effect  of  any  measure  upon  so  largo  a  part  of  the 
revenue  is  vital  to  our  finances  and  to  the  fiscal  credit  of  the  Govern- 
ment. 

Second,  it  affects  two  great  producing  industries  of  our  people.  The 
first  of  these  is  the  growth  of  cane  and  the  production  of  cane  sugar 
to  foster  which  Congress  has  for  a  long  time  levied  a  discriminating 
duty,  though  only  a  single  State  is  pursuing  the  industry.  Notwith- 
standing the  fact  that  sugar  is  one  of  the  necessities  of  the  daily  life 
of  our  people,  they  have  consented  to  pay  a  tax  which,  under  existing 
laws,  averages  about  62i  per  cent,  ad  valorem  upon  all  the  sugar  they 
-consume.    This  burden  is  borne  cheerfuUy  for  the  purpose  of  protect- 


47b4<^h 


ing  and  promotiug  a  great  home  industry  in  one  of  our  Southern  States. 
A  second  important  industry  which  has  grown  up  in  connection  with 
the  sugar  trade  and  has  developed  to  great  magnitude  in  recent  years 
is  the  business  of  refining.  It  is  one  of  the  interesting  evidences  of  the 
progress  of  civilization  that  people  are  using  less  and  less  of  the  raw 
sugars  of  commerce  and  more  and  more  of  refined  sugars.  And  this 
change  of  habit  is  not  merely  a  refinement  of  luxury  but  is  demanded 
by  a  better  knowledge  of  the  lawsof  health.  In  a  recent  investigation 
made  by  the  Analytical  Sanitary  Commission  of  England  appointed 
to  examine  the  various  kinds  of  food,  Dr.  Hassell,  the  chairman,  re- 
ported among  other  things  the  following : 

"We  feel,  however  reluctantly,  that  we  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  sugars 
of  commerce  are  in  general  in  a  state  wholly  unfit  for  consumption. 

That  is  the  latest  voice  of  science  in  England  on  the  subject  of  un- 
refined sugar.  And  if  gentlemen  will  turn  to  The  Popular  Science 
Monthly,  of  New  York,  for  February,  1879,  they  will  find  a  very  in- 
teresting scientific  discussion  of  the  various  insects  that  infest  food, 
and  on  images  508  and  509  occurs  a  passage  relating  to  sugars,  which  I 
quote : 

The  sugar-mite,  T.  sacchari,  [a  magnified  wood-cut  of  which  accompanies  the 
passage,]  is  most  commonly  found  in  brown  sugar.  It  is  large  enough  to  be  seen 
with  the  naked  eye,  and  sometimes  appears  as  white  specks  in  the  sugar.  It  may 
be  detected  by  dissolving  two  or  three  spoonfuls  of  sugar  in  warm  water  and 
allowing  the  solution  to  stand  for  an  hour  or  so.  At  the  end  of  the  time  theacari 
will  be  found  floating  on  the  surface,  adhering  to  the  sides  of  the  glass,  and  lying 
mixed  with  the  grit  and  dirt  that  always  accumulate  at  the  bottom.  In  ten  grains  of 
sugar  as  many  as  Ave  hundred  mites  have  been  found,  which  is  at  the  rate  of  three 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  to  the  pound.  Those  who  are  engaged  in  handling 
raw  sugars  are  subject  to  an  eruption  known  as  "  grocers'  itch,"  which  is  doubt- 
less to  be  traced  to  the  preseuce  of  these  mites.  Thej'  are  almost  invariably  pres- 
ent in  unrefined  sugars,  and  may  be  seen  in  all  stages  of  growth  and  in  every  con- 
dition, alive  and  dead,  entire  or  broken  in  fragments.  Kefined  sugars  are  free 
from  them.  This  is  in  part  due,  perhaps,  to  the  crystals  being  so  hard  as  to  resist 
their  jaws,  but  principally  to  the  absence  of  albumen,  for  without  nitrogenous  mat- 
ter they  cannot  live. 

*  *  *  *  *  *  * 

These  degraded  and  disgusting  forms  are  not  proper  food-stuifs,  nor  is  their  con- 
sumption unavoidable.  Pure  articles,  in  <an  undamaged  condition,  do  not  contain 
them  ;  and  their  presence  in  numbers  in  any  article  of  food  is  proof  that  it  is  unfit 
for  human  use  and  should  be  rejected. 

This  scientific  testimony  is  corroborated  by  the  experience  of  alL 
persons  who  manipulate  raw  sugars,  while  no  such  effects  result  from 
the  handling  of  refined  sugars.  For  these  reasons  the  consumption, 
of  raw  sugars  in  this  and  in  all  other  civilized  countries  has  rapidly 
fallen  oti".  Ahd  so,  although  in  former  years  a  large  quantity  of  what 
is  known  as  grocers'  sugars  went  directly  into  consumption  without 
going  through  the  process  of  refining,  the  amount  of  sngars  of  that. 
class  now  used  has  been  reduced  to  almost  nothing. 


5 

To  exhibit  somethiug  of  the  maguitude  of  this  industry,  I  state  a 
few  facta :  omitting  maple,  sorghum,  and  beet  sugar,  we  consumed 
last  year  in  round  numbers  one  billion  seven  hundred  million  pounds 
of  cane  sugar.  Of  this  amount  we  produced  in  our  own  country  two 
hundred  million  pounds  ;  the  remaining  one  billion  live  hundred  mill- 
ions were  imported.  Reduce  the  whole  to  tons,  the  people  of  the 
United  States  consumed  seven  hundred  and  forty  thousand  tons  of 
cane  sugar  last  year,  or  an  average  of  about  forty-tive  pounds  to  each 
inhabitant.  Of  all  this  vast  amount  of  sugar  not  2  per  cent,  was  con- 
sumed in  the  raw  or  unrefined  state.  Nearly  all  of  it  passed  through 
some  process  of  refining  to  fit  it  for  the  use  of  our  people. 

From  this  it  will  be  seen  that  in  addition  to  the  business  of  cane- 
planting  and  sugar-making  there  has  grown  up  in  this  country  a  sec- 
ond industry  of  sugar  refining,  the  importance  of  which  may  be  shown 
by  a  few  additional  facts.  There  are  twenty-five  thousand  laborers 
in  the  United  States  to-day  emi»loyed  in  the  business  of  refining  sugar 
and  fitting  it  for  use,  in  addition  to  those  employed  by  the  sugar  pro- 
ducers. In  this  work  they  employ  coopers,  blacksmiths,  mechanics, 
machinists,  and  other  classes  of  laborers.  They  consume  thirty  mill- 
ions of  pounds  of  bone-dust,  eighteen  thousand  kegs  of  nails,  thirty 
thousand  car-loads  of  staves,  and  three  hundred  thousand  tons  of 
coal. 

In  this  statement  I  do  not  take  into  account  the  refining  done  by 
Louisiana  planters  in  preparing  their  products  for  market,  though  a 
large  majority  of  the  sugar  growers  have  connected  with  their  mills 
some  form  of  refining.  I  have  stated  these  facts  to  show  the  extent 
of  the  two  home  industries,  which  we  should  keep  in  view  in  any 
legislation  on  the  subject. 

The  third  interest  to  be  considered  is  our  foreign  commerce,  of 
which  only  a  word  needs  to  be  said.  We  are  compelled  to  buy  abroad 
about  85  per  cent,  of  all  our  sugar.  We  buy  it  from  tropical  coun-  ' 
tries  with  which,  on  every  ground  of  public  policy,  we  ought  to  main- 
tain healthy  and  active  relations  of  trade.  If  we  are  able,  by  our 
superior  skill,  to  refine  their  low-grade  sugars  more  cheaply  than  our 
neighbors  and  send  them  back  with  the  added  value  of  American 
labor,  it  will  strengthen  us  industrially  and  commercially  ;  and  the 
fact  that  our  refining  interest  has  grown  to  such  perfection  that  we 
have  been  able  to  sell  in  a  single  year  to  tropical  countries  about 
seventy  million  pounds  of  refined  sugar,  is  a  gratifying  one  on  every 
account.  No  change  should  be  made  in  the  law  which  will  injure  our 
commenial  prospedts  in  this  direction. 

The  fourth  interest,  one  of  vital  importance,  is  that  of  the  consum- 
ers of  sugar.  They  are  not  a  class  ;  they  are  the  whole  population  of 
the  United  States  ;  and  there  must  be  reasons  of  controlling  strength 
thatwill  justify  any  considerable  taxon  an  article  of  food  of  universal 


6 

consumption  and  of  such  prime  necessity  as  sugar.  That  reason  ha& 
been  found  partly  iu  the  necessity  for  revenue,  but  chiefly  in  the 
purpose  of  enabling  our  people  to  become  self-supporting,  and  as  far 
as  possible  to  produce  their  own  sugars,  that  they  may  not  be  depend- 
ent upon  foreign  countries  for  so  important  an  article  of  food.  Iu 
short,  the  chief  reason  for  the  tax  is  that  American  labor  may  find 
employment  in  producing  and  preparing  food  for  American  tables. 

The  duty  on  sugar  has  been  levied  in  various  forms.  Up  to  1846 
sugars  were  classified  into  raw  and  refined  sugar,  with  a  low  rate  on 
the  raw  and  a  higher  rate  on  the  refined.  But  as  the  processes  of 
manufacture  and  refining  have  been  improved,  additional  grades  have- 
been  added  to  the  law  from  time  to  time  to  meet  the  new  conditions. 
It  was  found  in  1870  that  the  lower  grades  embraced  so  wide  a  range 
of  products  that  a  uniform  tax  upon  one  whole  class  was  neither 
equitable  nor  just ;  and  hence  the  law  was  so  amended  as  to  increase 
the  number  of  classes  and  make  the  tax  ad  valorem  in  principle  but 
specific  in  form  ;  that  is,  sugar  in  all  its  forms  was  graded  into  seven 
classes,  arranged  in  the  order  of  its  value,  and  a  specific  duty  was 
levied  upon  each  class,  the  lowest  rate  being  imposed  upon  the  sugars 
of  lowest  value  and  a  higher  rate  upon  each  successive  class.  The 
tax  thus  adjusted  has  been  an  efficient  means  of  raising  revenue. 
I  have  already  shown  that  it  produces  more  than  $37,000,000  a  year. 
That  it  has  afi'orded  sufficient  protection  to  the  producers  and  refiners 
of  sugar  will  not  be  denied.  The  theory  of  protection  may  perhaps 
be  thus  summarized :  on  any  imported  article  which  comes  in  com- 
petition with  an  American  product  the  rate  of  tax  should  be  propor- 
tionate to  the  amount  of  human  labor  which  has  been  expended  upon, 
it  at  the  time  of  imjjortation.  That  which  represents  the  least  labor 
should  bear  the  least  burden  of  tax ;  that  which  represents  the  most 
should  bear  the  greatest.  This  principle  has  generally  prevailed  iu 
all  our  tariff'  laws  relating  to  sugar. 

As  the  law  now  stands,  the  duty  is  adjusted  by  classifying  all  sugars 
into  scA'en  grades.  First,  the  lowest,  crudest,  and  cheapest  product, 
which  comes  in  liipiid  form  and  is  known  as  melada.  On  that  we  levy 
a  specific  duty  equal  to  aboiit  40  per  cent,  ad  ralorcm.  The  next  grade  ■ 
of  sugar  is  represented  by  the  specimen  I  hold  in  my  hand,  and  is 
known  in  the  trade  and  to  our  law  as  Dutch  standard  No.  7.  Until 
a  recent  period  all  sugar  was  manufactured  by  the  simple  process  of 
boiling  down  the  cane-juice  and  clarifying  the  product  by  means  of 
clay.  By  that  process  the  purity  and  strength  and  hence  the  value 
of  all  crystallized  sugar  were  exhibited  by  its  color.  Here,  for  exam- 
ple, [holding  up  a  specimen,]  is  a  specimen  of  the  lowest  and  crudest 
forms  of  crystallized  sugar.  Gentlemen  will  notice  its  dark  color.  It 
is  known  and  graded  as  Dutch  standard  No.  7,  and  forms  the  second 
class  in  our  present  law.     Here  [holding  uji  another  specimen]  i» 


7  . 

another  specimen  advanced  higher,  embodying  more  human  labor, 
having  less  impurity  in  it,  being  advanced  to  a  condition  fit  for 
use.  It  is  known  as  Dutch  standard  No.  20.  Ranging  between  these 
two  specimens  are  several  grades,  the  seven  classes  of  the  present 
law  being — 

First,  melada,  as  I  have  described  it. 

Second,  No.  7  and  under. 

Third,  all  above  No.  7  and  not  above  No.  10. 

Fourth,  all  above  No.  10  and  not  above  No.  13. 

Fifth,  all  above  No.  13  and  not  above  No.  16. 

Sixth,  all  above  No.  16  and  not  above  No.  20,  (a  specimen  of  which 
last  I  have  just  exhibited.) 

Seventh,  all  above  No.  20. 

The  theory  of  the  law  is  that  these  various  grades  of  sugar  repre- 
sent a  scale  of  increasing  value,  an  increasing  amount  of  labor ;  and 
therefore  the  higher  the  grade  the  heavier  the  duty.  For  ease  of 
comparison  I  reduce  the  specific  rates  to  •  ad  raZorcwi,  and  show  the 
status  of  the  existing  law.  On  the  lowest  form  of  sugar,  melada,  the 
rate  is  about  40  per  cent,  ad  valorem.  On  the  next  grade,  which  in- 
cludes all  not  above  the  Dutch  standard  No.  7,  it  is  about  4-5  per  cent. ; 
on  the  next  grade,  including  No.  10,  it  is  about  4(H  per  cent. ;  on  sugars 
between  No.  10  and  No.  13  it  is  49^  per  cent ;  between  13  and  16,  684 
per  cent,  and  -so  on,  the  rate  increasing  according  to  the  value  of  the 
sugar  and  the  amount  of  the  labor  expended  upon  it.  This  method 
of  taxation  seems  to  be  fair  and  just;  for  if  the  principle  of  protec- 
tion be  applied  to  sugar  at  all,  it  ought  to  be  applied  on  some  plan  of 
grad  nation  which  imposes  the  heaviest  burden  upon  those  grades  which 
involve  the  most  foreign  labor  and  which  are  the  most  valuable. 

I  believe  the  correctness  of  the  principle  of  the  present  law  is  not 
called  in  question  anywhere.  Although  the  aggregate  rate  of  duty 
is  high,  consumers  are  not  complaining;  for  the  sugar  used  by  our 
people  is  cheaper  to-day  than  it  has  been  during  any  previous  period 
of  our  history.  In  1869  the  average  price  in  the  United  States  of  all 
•grades  of  sugar  was  15  cents  a  pouud.  In  1878  the  average  price  was 
9  cents  a  pouud.  A  dollar  will  to-day  buy  more  sweetening  than  it 
would  have  bought  at  auy  previous  period  in  our  history.  A  day's 
work  even,  will  buy  more  sweetening  to-day  than  it  would  have  bought 
ten  years  ago.  Therefore  the  consumers  of  sugar  of  this  country  are  not 
complaining  that  the  rate  of  tax  is  too  high.  The  planters  of  Lou- 
isiana are  not  complaining  that  they  are  not  sulficiently  protected  by 
the  present  law ;  for  they  get  an  average  protection  of  62^  per  cent., 
far  greater  than  we  get  on  most  of  our  northern  products. 

Who,  then,  is  complaining,  if  neither  the  producers  of  sugar  nor  the 
consumers  complain  ?  The  Treasury  alone  is  now  making  complaint. 
The  Secretary  tells  lis  that  new  processes  of  manufacture  have  en- 


8 

abled  foreign  producers  to  produce  sugar  of  as  high  a  grade  of  sweet- 
ness and  as  pure  as  this  specimen  [showing  a  light  colored  sugar]  but 
which  has  a  color  as  low  as  this,  [showing  a  dark  sugar,]  and  there- 
fore, as  the  letter  of  the  law  fixes  the  rate  of  duty  on  the  basis  of  color 
alone,  high-grade  sugars  in  sweetness  and  value,  but  of  low  color,  are 
brought  in  at  a  rate  below  the  intent  of  the  law,  and  so  the  revenue 
is  defrauded.  Two  recent  processes  of  manufacture  known  as  the 
centrifugal  process  and  the  vacuum-pan  process,  have  so  changed 
the  character  of  the  product,  especially  in  Cuba,  that  high-priced 
sugar  comes  in  graded  at  low  rates ;  and  of  that  the  Secretary  of  the 
Treasury  complains.  He  says,  and  so  say  his  experts,  that  we  are 
probably  losing  from  four  to  five  million  dollars  a  year,  in  conse- 
quence of  this  undervaluation  of  sugar. 

To  meet  this  defect  in  the  law  should  be  the  sole  object  of  the  pres- 
ent bill.    To  whom  should  we  look  for  the  suggestion  of  a  practical 
and  efiScient  remedy  of  the  only  evil  complained  of  ?     First  of  all,  we 
should  look  to  the  officer  who  is  charged  by  law  with  the  duty  of  col- 
lecting the  revenue.     And  he,  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  has  pro- 
posed a  remedy.    He  does  not  ask  us  to  change  the  rate  of  duty.     He 
does  not  ask  us  to  raise  or  reduce  the  present  rate.    All  he  does  ask  is 
that  we  give  him  the  power  to  prevent  undervaluations  which  he  can- 
not prevent  as  the  law  now  stands.     He  does  not  complain  that  the 
color  test  has  been  proved  altogether  worthless.     It  is  still  as  valuable 
as  ever  for  all  sugars  of  the  higher  grade ;  but  the  two  new  processes 
of  which  I  have  spoken  have  enabled  manufacturers  to  evade  the 
spirit  of  the  law  in  the  lower  grades,  especially  in  grades  below  No.  10, 
Dutch  standard ;  and  he  declares  that  if  we  will  authorize  him  to 
apply  other  tests  which  will  correct  the  undervaluation  in  these  lower 
grades,  he  can  collect  the  revenue  fairly  and  fully,  according  to  the 
original  intent  of  the  law,  without  any  change  of  the  rates  or  change 
of  the  grades  already  established.     In  a  word,  he  asks  us  to  give  him 
the  requisite  authority  and  means  for  enforcing  the  present  law  accord- 
ing to  its  real  intent  and  purpose. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  believe  that  I  have  stated  all  the  trouble 
complained  of  in  the  present  law.  We  are  not  asked  to  legislate  either 
for  the  consumer  or  the  producer,  for  Louisiana  or  for  New  York,  or  for 
the  great  West.  We  are  asked  to  legislate  to  protect  the  Treasury 
against  loss  of  revenue  by  undervaluation.  That  is  all.  And  what 
is  the  remedy  proposed  ?  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  proposes 
what  I  now  otfer  on  behalf  of  the  minority  of  the  Committee  of  Ways 
and  Means  as  a  substitute  for  the  pending  bill,  and  I  ask  the  Clerk 
to  read  it. 
The  Clerk  read  as  follows  : 

Be  it  enacted,  c6c.,  That  from  and  after  the ila\'  of ,  1-79,  in  the  classi- 

flcation  of  iiniiorted  sugars  for  assessment  of  duty,  an^'  sugar  which  shall  not  he 


9 

above  No.  10,  Dutch  standard  in  color,  which  shall  contain  more  than  !t2  per  cent, 
of  crystallizable  sugar  shall  pay  the  rate  of  duty  now  chargeable  to  sugar  above  No. 
10,  and  not  above  No.  13,  Dutch  standard  in  color,  and  the  per  centum  of  crystalliz- 
able sugar  shall  be  ascertained  by  the  polariscope  or  such  other  meaus  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  The  Secretary  simply  asks  us  in  that  amendment 
to  give  him  the  power  to  superadd  to  the  color  test  the  use  of  the 
polariscope  or  auy  other  tests  which  he  n^ay  find  effective  in  making 
crystallizable  strength  and  color  correspond.     That  is  all. 

If  there  had  been  no  virtual  evasion  of  the  color  test,  there  would 
have  been  no  need  of  any  change  in  the  law  ;  and  it  is  only  to  meet 
that  evasion  that  he  asks  authority  to  do  what  he  cannot  now  do,  add 
to  the  color  test  the  polariscope  test  or  any  other  scientific  test  he  may 
choose. 

Mr.  ROBBINS.  Is  it  proposed  to  apply  the  polariscope  test  to  all 
sugars  below  No.  10  in  every  instance  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.     It  is,  wherever  found  necessary. 

Mr.  ROBBINS.  How  will  the  officers  of  the  Government  know  the 
need  of  applying  the  test  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  will  tell  the  gentleman.  Whenever  an  im- 
ported sugar  bears  evidence  on  its  face  that  the  color  and  sweetness 
are  in  harmony  the  color  test  will  remain  undisturbed  ;  but  when  for 
any  reason  the  inspectors  of  the  revenue  or  other  officers  of  the  Gov- 
ernment have  reason  to  believe  that  the  sugar  is  of  a  higher  grade 
than  its  color  would  indicate,  or  that  its  color  is  below  what  the  law 
intended,  they  will  apply  the  polariscope  and  correct  the  valuation. 

The  bill  I  offer  is  the  simplest  and  plainest  method  that  can  be  had 
to  enable  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  to  enforce  existing  law. 

Mr.  ROBBINS.  Who  is  to  determine  whether  the  sugar  looks  upon 
its  face  as  sweet  as  it  is  represented  to  be  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  The  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  by  his  regulations 
and  orders  to  his  officers  appointed  for  that  purpose.  What  the  gen- 
tleman says  would  be  equally  applicable  to  his  own  bill. 

The  gentleman  himself  in  his  own  bill  recognizes  the  Dutch  stand- 
ards of  color,  and  how  is  he  going  to  determine  whether  any  given 
sugar  is  above  or  below  No.  13  Dutch  standard  ?  How  does  he  draw 
the  line  in  his  own  bill,  and  who  is  to  determine  whether  the  sugar 
is  above  or  below  that  standard  ? 

Mr.  ROBBINS.  In  reference  to  No.  7,  who  is  to  determine  whether 
the  sugar  imported  is  higher  or  lower  than  No.  7  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  answered  the  gentleman  before  ;  the  executive 
officers  of  the  Government  charged  with  the  office  of  collecting  these 
duties  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  and  under 
the  rules  and  regulations  which  he  may  make. 

Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  whatever  difficulties  the  gentleman  from  North 
Carolina  [Mr.  Robbixs]  may  have  or  I  may  have  or  you  may  have, 


10 

it  must  be  taken  for  granted  that  the  officers  who  will  discharge  this 
duty  are  intelligent  and  vigilant. 

The  present  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  tells  us  that  with  the  simple 
measure  I  have  offered  he  can  administer  the  law  and  collect  the  rev- 
enue. That  being  so,  I  do  not  think  it  quite  becomes  us  to  say  that 
he  cannot  do  it,  and  deny  him  the  provision  that  he  asks  for,  and  all 
he  asks  for,  to  enable  him  ,to  put  five  millions  more  revenue  into  the 
Treasury  without  increasing  the  rate  of  taxation. 

For  one,  I  am  unwilling  to  take  upon  my  shoulders  the  responsibil- 
ity of  refusing  the  Secretary  the  means  he  asks  for  to  enable  him  to 
collect  the  revenue,  and,  instead,  give  him  a  remedy  of  my  own  de- 
vising. 

Suppose  he  fails  ;  he  can  very  well  say  that  Congress  refused  the 
instrument  he  wanted  and  gave  him  one  of  their  own  devising.  In 
that  case  the  responsibility  will  fall  not  upon  him  but  upon  Con- 
gress for  forcing  upon  him  a  plan  he  did  not  ask  for  or  recommend. 

I  say,  therefore,  on  general  principles,  that  when  an  executive  offi- 
cer whom  we  have  a  right  to  trust  for  his  intelligence,  skill,  and 
character  as  a  public  man,  comes  to  us  and  asks  for  a  certain  definite^ 
plain  provision  of  law,  we  ought  to  have  very  strong  reasons  of  our 
own  why  we  do  not  grant  it,  especially  when  he  asks  us  not  to  change 
the  rate  of  duty,  not  to  tear  down  the  structure  of  the  law,  but  sim- 
ply to  give  him  the  means  to  enforce  it.  This  is  the  ground  on  which^ 
in  the  first  place,  I  plant  my  argument  for  the  amendment  I  have 
offered  as  against  the  new  and  larger  and,  as  I  think,  the  very  peril- 
ous scheme  proposed  by  the  majority  of  the  Committee  of  Ways  and 
Means. 

Let  us  next  consider  the  scheme  which  they  have  offered.  I  want 
gentlemen  to  understand  that  of  the  seven  lower  grades  of  sugar  a» 
they  now  stand  in  the  law,  each  paying  a  different  rate  of  duty 
and  a  rate  increasing  as  the  sugar  advances  in  quality,  by  the  bill  of 
the  gentleman  from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  Robbins]  it  is  proposed  to- 
consolidate  into  one  the  first  four  of  those  grades,  that  is,  melada 
and  three  lowest  grades  of  sugar,  and  to  provide  that  all  four  grades 
shall  be  put  on  a  dead  level  of  equality  and  shall  pay  a  duty  of  2.40 
cents  per  pound.  This  is  a  radical  and  sweeping  change  in  the  pres- 
ent law,  for  it  covers  about  9P  per  cent,  of  all  sugars  imported. 

To  show  how  important  to  the  revenue  those  four  lower  grades 
are,  I  state  a  fact  furnished  by  the  Bureau  of  Statistics.  It  is  this, 
that  out  of  $:37,000,000  of  revenue  received  last  year  from  sugar,  ^ 
$;54,9.')5,000,  almost  90  per  cent.,  was  received  from  sugar  of  the  three 
lower  grades.  I  cannot  emphasize  this  fact  too  strongly  in  consider- 
ing the  radical  change  proposed  by  the  Robbins  bill. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  Will  the  gentleman  allow  me  to  interrupt  him  a 
moment  ? 


11 

Mr.  GARFIELD.     Certainly. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  How  much  of  that  duty  cornea  from  grades  under 
No.  7  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.     I  have  not  the  figures  before  me. 

Mr.  BUTLER.     Well,  I  have. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  Of  the  grades  under  No.  10,  Dutch  standard,  there 
were  received  $35,000,000  out  of  |.37,000,000  ;  and  of  the  grades  under 
No.  7  I  think  about  $14,000,000  or  $15,000,000.  But  from  No.  10  down 
we  get  thirty-five  millions  of  the  thirty-seven  millions  collected  on 
sugar.  What  effect  this  change  will  have  on  the  revenues  it  is  diffi- 
cult to  say ;  but  I  have  no  doubt  it  will  wholly  prevent  the  importa- 
tion of  the  lowest  grades,  will  increase  the  price  of  sugar  to  the  con- 
sumer and  probably  decrease  the  revenue.  At  all  events  it  is  a  dan- 
gerous experiment  to  make  in  view  of  our  present  financial  necessities. 

But  I  desire  to  show  how  it  will  operate  as  a  protective  measure. 
I  have  already  shown  that  by  our  present  law  sugar  pays  a  duty  of 
40  per  cent.,  45  per  cent.,  46  per  cent.,  49  per  cent.,  68  per  cent.,  &c., 
increasing  in  rate  from  the  lower  to  the  higher  grades.  Now  note  the 
effect  of  consolidating  the  lower  grades,  as  proposed  in  the  Robbins 
bill,  and  fixing  the  single  rate  of  2.40  cents  per  pound.  Melada,  which 
is  the  lowest  grade  and  now  pays  about  40  per  cent,  will  then  pay  80  per 
cent,  ad  V(tloirm.  The  second  grade,  (that  is,  sugar  not  above  No.  7,) 
which  now  pays  45  per  cent.,  will  then  pay  08^  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 
The  next  grade  will  pay  60  percent.,  the  next  higher  53  percent.,  the 
next  higher  45  per  cent.,  and  the  next  42  per  cent,  ad  valorem. 

In  short,  the  Robbins  bill  is  an  inverted  cone  ;  the  lowest  grade  of 
sugar  must  bear  the  highest  rate  of  duty,  and  the  highest  grade  will 
bear  the  lowest  rate.  In  other  words,  the  less  labor  there  is  in  the 
imported  product,  the  heavier  the  rate  of  tax  upon  it ;  and  the  more 
labor,  foreign  labor  remember,  there  is  in  it,  the  least  burden  of  tax 
will  be  put  upon  it. 

The  fundamental  doctrine  of  protection  is  completely  overturned 
and  reversed  by  this  bill.  Yet  it  is  by  no  raeaus  a  free-trade  bill.  It 
so  happens  that  on  the  grades  upon  which  the  extreme  high  rate  of 
duty  is  imposed,  our  friends  from  Louisiana  will  receive  a  very  con- 
siderably larger  protective  duty  than  the  present  law  gives  them. 
Hence  the  favor  with  which  this  proposition  is  received  by  gentle- 
men from  that  portion  of  the  country. 

Mr.  KELLEY.  I  desire  to  say  that  there  is  such  a  noise  coming 
from  the  galleries  that  we  sitting  here  by  the  gentleman  from  Ohio 
[Mr.  Garfield]  cannot  hear  what  he  is  saying. 

The  SPEAKER  2J?'o  tempore.  Unless  silence  is  observed  in  the  gal- 
leries they  will  be  cleared. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  Now,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  object  to  this  bill,  first,  be- 
cause it  violates  the  fundamental  principles  of  a  just  and  equitable 


12 

taxation;  and  I  object  to  it  iu  the  second  place  because  it  puts  a 
prohibitory  duty  upon  the  low-grade  sugars  that  are  refined  by  Ameri- 
can skill,  and  become  the  cheap  sugar  iu  common  use  among  our 
people.  It  injures  one  portion  of  our  industrial  interests  and  gives 
an  unreasonable  protection  to  another.  It  violates  the  canons  of  free 
trade  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  protection  on  the  other.  It  destroys 
absolutely  the  business  of  refining  the  cheap  low-grade  sugars,  and 
will  increase  the  cost  of  sugars  most  in  use. 

Let  me  illustrate  still  further.  How  is  it  that  this  day  while  I 
speak  to  you  sugar  is  cheaper  in  the  United  States  than  it  has  ever 
been  before  ?  Because  we  have  built  up  in  this  country  a  great  in- 
dustry, by  which  we  are  eclipsing  the  world  as  refiners  of  sugar. 
When  the  French  manufacturers  were  at  Philadelphia  at  our  Cen- 
tennial, they  were  amazed  to  see  that  our  sugar  products  there 
rivaled  the  best  products  of  the  Old  World.  They  did  not  under- 
stand how  it  had  been  done.  But  it  was  the  result  of  the  same  skill 
that  has  enabled  America  to  surpass  so  many  other  countries  in  the 
recent  exposition  at  Paris  and  to  carry  off  more  medals  in  proportion 
to  their  exhibitors  than  any  other  five  countries  of  the  globe. 

We  were  so  successful  in  the  refining  of  sugar  that  two  years  ago  we 
were  exporting  seventy  million  pounds  of  our  refined  product.  It  was 
becoming  and  it  will  become,  if  we  are  allowed  to  carry  on  this  indus- 
try, a  great  element  in  our  export  trade.  We  are  trading  with  Cuba 
and  South  America ;  we  are  compelled  to  depend  largely  upon  the  trop- 
ics for  our  raw  material.  Is  it  not  wise  for  us  to  be  able  to  send  back 
the  refined  product  in  exchange  ?  Or  shall  we  so  legislate  as  to  give 
an  undue  protection  to  our  Louisiana  planters,  and  drive  the  refining 
business  out  of  the  United  States,  allowiug  Cuba,  England,  and  other 
countries  to  do  our  refining  for  us  ?  Refined  sugar  we  must  have. 
The  day  is  gone  by  when  our  people  will  eat  the  animals  which  abound 
in  the  raw  unmanufactured  sugars  of  the  world.  I  say,  therefore, 
that  this  bill  as  drawn  sins  against  the  consumer  and  against  the 
refining  interest  and  unreasonably  protects  the  producing  interest  of 
the  country. 

Let  me  illustrate  a  little  further.  In  the  Phillipine  Islands  there 
is  a  class  of  people  who  have  not  enough  intelligence  and  resources 
to  take  the  first  simple  step  toward  claiifying  sugar.  They  have  no 
limestone  on  their  islands ;  they  cannot  even  furnish  the  lime  to  drop 
into  the  sugar  vats  and  clarify  the  product  just  a  little.  But  they 
take  the  juice  of  the  cane  aud  boil  it  down  in  the  crudest,  rudest, 
simplest  way,  by  labor  the  cheapest  and  least  skillful ;  and  when  they 
have  reduced  it  to  a  black  cheap  form  of  crystallized  sugar,  the  dirt- 
iest yet  known,  they  put  it  up  in  sacks  of  one  hundred  and  fifty 
poniids  each,  so  that  a  man  Ciui  carry  it  on  his  back  down  to  the  land- 
ing to  be  shipped  away.     Our  people  are  buying  largely  of  that  ^osv 


13 

grade  of  sugar  from  the  Phillipine  Islands.  We  are  buying  it  also 
from  other  countries  where  the  production  is  of  a  low  grade.  This 
sugar  we  bring  here  and  by  our  skill  and  labor  make  it  into  a  cheap 
clean  sugar  for  table  use.  Shall  we  now  by  law  impose  a  prohibitory- 
duty  on  all  that  trade  and  industry,  an  80  per  cent,  rate  or  a  65  per  cent, 
rate,  keeping  it  all  out  and  bringing  in  only  the  sugar  that  has  been 
advanced  by  the  higher  and  more  intelligent  processes  of  our  nearer 
neighbors,  thus  cutting  oft'  the  whole  business  of  refining  these  low- 
grade  sugars  ?    I  hope  not. 

I  know  there  is  some  controversy  among  the  refiners  themselves. 
Some  of  them — indeed,  quite  a  number  of  most  estimable  gentle- 
men— say,  "  Let  this  bill  pass  and  we  can  do  a  better  refining  busi- 
ness than  is  done  now  ;  we  can  refine  the  high-grade  sugars."  Now, 
I  am  glad  to  have  those  gentlemen  work  the  higher  grades  of  sugar 
and  make  a  success  of  them  ;  but  I  see  no  reason  why  our  refineries 
should  not  also  take  the  lowest  grades  of  sugar,  that  which  has  the 
least  value,  the  least  labor  in  it,  and  bring  it  up  by  our  American 
labor  to  a  cheap,  useful,  merchantable  form  ;  and  therefore  I  am  un- 
willing, for  the  sake  of  helping  one  class  of  refiners,  to  destroy  another, 
I  do  not  believe  it  is  necessary  to  destroy  either. 

I  regret  that  the  refiners  do  not  unite  on  some  common  ground  on 
which  all  could  have  had  a  fair  chance.  But  there  seems  to  have 
been  an  internecine  war  among  them ;  and  with  such  a  war  I  have  no 
sympathy. 

Having  now  stated  my  objections  in  brief  to  the  bill  of  the  gentle- 
man from  North  Carolina,  [Mr.  Robbins,]  I  turn  to  answer  his  criti- 
cisms of  the  measure  I  have  proposed,  which  is  the  bill  of  the  Treas- 
ury Department.  The  gentleman  from  North  Carolina  [Mr.  RoB- 
Bixs]  says  that  the  polariscope  is  an  unsatisfactory  instrument,  and 
that,  however  perfect  it  might  be,  there  is  serious  difficulty  in  samp- 
ling the  sugars  to  be  tested.  I  admit  that  there  is  trouble  about 
sampling.  Suppose  a  hogshead  of  sugar  is  allowed  to  remain  lying 
on  its  side  for  a  month,  and  the  sampler  bores  a  hole  in  the  hogshead 
and  draws  out  a  sample  close,  to  the  bottom.  He  gets  a  wet,  black, 
coarse  portion  of  the  sugar.  On  the  other  hand,  if  he  draws  his 
sample  from  the  top,  he  gets  a  dry,  lighter-colored,  better  grade  of 
sugar. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  How  much  foreign  labor  is  there  in  the  settlings  of 
that  sugar  ?     [Laughter.] 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  There  certainly  is  a  good  deal^f  dirt  in  it.  [Laugh- 
ter.] As  a  matter  of  course  if  that  sampler  has  been  bought  by  some 
importer  he  may  take  the  samples  out  of  the  bottom  of  the  cask  only, 
which  will  not  represent  the  character  of  the  whole.  But  whether  the 
system  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  North  Carolina,  [Mr.  Rob- 
bins,]  or  that  of  the  Treasury  Department  prevails,  we  must  leave 


14 

the  details  of  carrying  it  out  to  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury.  Under 
the  regulations  of  the  Treasury  Department  an  official  is  not  per- 
mitted to  sample  a  hogshead* of  sugar  in  one  spot  only.  He  samples 
above  and  below  and  at  the  center ;  and  the  diftereut  samples  being 
mixed  into  one,  make  a  pretty  fair  average  sample  of  the  cask  ;  and 
then  taking  every  tenth  cask  of  the  cargo,  a  pretty  fair  set  of  sam- 
ples of  the  whole  cargo  is  obtained.  But  the  trouble  about  sampling, 
inheres  in  any  graded  system,  and  no  one  proposes  to  abolish  all  the 
grades. 

But  the  gentleman  thinks  the  polariscope  test  is  good  for  nothing. 
I  have  some  evidence  on  that  subject. 

In  the  first  place,  Mr.  Speaker,  the  polariscope,  being  a  scientific 
instrument,  (into  the  details  of  which  I  will  not  go  as  my  learned 
colleague  on  the  committee  did,)  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  sent 
it  about  two  years  ago  to  the  American  Academy  of  Sciences,  of 
which  Professor  Henry  was  president,  with  the  request  that  it  be  ex- 
amined and  a  report  made  as  to  the  advisability  of  its  use  by  the 
Government  in  determining  the  value  of  sugars  for  revenue  purposes. 
After  a  thorough  examination,  and  with  the  assistance  of  persons 
well  qualified  to  judge,  Professor  Henry  reported  to  the  Secretary  of 
the  Treasury  on  the  5th  day  of  February,  1878,  as  follows : 

After  due  deliberation  on  the  subject,  the  following  are  our  final  conclusions  : 

That  the  quantity  of  cryatallizable  sugar  in  imported  raw  sugars  should  be  esti- 
mated by  the  polarimeter,  which  is  an  entirely  trustworthy  instrument,  and  olo 
the  use  of  which  can  readily  be  taught  to  any  intelligent  person  of  ordinary  edu- 
cation. 

If  the  polarimeter  should  be  adopted  as  the  measure  of  the  value  of  sugar,  a 
«npply  of  these  instruments  should  be  obtained  from  Germany,  and  their  use 
taught  to  the  appraisers  by  a  person  thoroughly  acquainted  with  the  theory  aLd 
practice  of  the  instrument.  The  accuracy  of  the  instruments  themselves  should 
also  be  tested,  and  the  appraisers  from  time  to  time  be  examined  as  to  their  skill 
in  the  use  of  the  instrument. 

This  is  the  opinion  of  a  scientific  man,  the  most  eminent  and  trust- 
worthy of  our  countrymen  ;  and  when  he  says  that  a  layman,  a  man 
-without  special  skill,  can  be  taught  to  use  this  instrument  accurately, 
and  that  it  is  "  entirely  trustworthy,"  I  have  not  quite  the  courage  to 
say  it  is  not  so. 

But  that  is  not  all.  I  turn  from  the  test  of  science  to  the  test  of 
practice.  I  have  before  me  a  memorial  containing  the  resolutions 
adopted  by  the  importers,  refiners,  and  dealers  in  sugar  in  Boston, 
signed  by  66  firms  rM)reseuting,  I  am  told,  every  refiner  in  that  city. 
They  speak  for  themselves : 

Boston,  January  30,  1879. 

At  an  adjourned  meeting  of  the  importers,  refiners,  and  dealers  in  sugar,  held 
this  day,  the  following  resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted : 

Resolved,  That  the  duties  on  sugar  should  be  assessed  by  a  graduated  scale  of 
specific  rates,  adjusted  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  ad  valorem  principle,  and  that 


15 

this  can  be  done  by  the  uae  of  the  polariscope  better  thau  in  any  other  way.  Its 
general  use  in  buying  and  selling  in  all  civilized  countries  proves  that  it  is  less 
complicated  and  more  reliable  than  any  other  method  of  determining  the  actual 
Talue  of  sugar. 

Resolved,  That  duties  ought  to  be  so  regulated  and  assessed  as  to  encourage  the 
largest  possible  supplies  of  sugar  from  all  places  of  production,  and  not  in  any  way 
made  so  as  to  favor  one  place  more  than  another ;  and  that  the  amount  of  revenue 
now, derived  from  the  lower  grades  of  sugar  cannot  be  increased  without  injustice 
and  injury  to  the  consumers,  as  it  is  uo^  too  high  in  proportion  to  high  gi-ades. 

JOHN  W.  CANDLER,  Chairman. 

"WM.  H.  GREELEY,  Secretary. 

"We,  the  undersigned  importers,  refiners,  and  dealers  in  sugar,  approve  of  the 
above  resolutions. 

(Signed  by  sixty-six  firms.) 

The  testimoDy  of  these  geutlemen  is  that  the  gradiug  of  sugars  can 
be  better  eliected  by  the  polariscope  than  iu  any  other  way.  Its  gen- 
eral use  in  buying  and  selling  sugar  strongly  attests  its  practicability. 

A  prominent  gentleman  from  Boston,  who  is  one  of  these  signers  of 
this  memorial,  stated  to  the  Committee  of  Ways  and  Means  that  he 
bought  twenty-six  large  cargoes  of  sugar  during  the  last  season  from 
Cuba  on  telegraphic  orders  and  by  the  polariscope  test.  It  was  done 
in  this  way :  he  cabled  to  the  manufacturer  in  Cuba,  "  Send  me  so 
many  hogsheads  of  sugar  testing  92"^  or  94^  polariscope  test,"  and  the 
sugars  came. 

The  Cuban  seller  applied  the  polariscope  test  when  he  shipped  them, 
and  the  Boston  buyer  applied  the  polariscope  test  when  they  were 
received.  The  record  of  those  twenty-six  cargoes  shows  that  if  the 
duty  had  been  assessed  by  the  test  of  the  polariscope  there  would 
have  been  but  .$125  difference  in  half  a  million  dollars  duty  between 
the  Cuban  test  and  the  Boston  test.  There  were  variations  in  the 
tests  of  single  cargoes,  but  the  whole  shipment  showed  if  we  had  fol- 
lowed the  Cuban  test  alone  in  levying  the  duties  the  account  would 
have  varied  but  .$125  from  the  amount  based  on  the  Boston  test,  the 
parties  having  adverse  interests — one  the  buyer,  the  other  the  seller. 
Stronger  proof  of  the  practicability  of  the  polariscope  test  of  sugar 
can  hardly  be  conceived. 

Mr.  MILLS.  I  understand  my  friend  from  Ohio  and  the  signers  of 
that  resolution  to  state  that  the  polariscope  is  the  full  test  of  the 
value  of  sugar. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  Yes,  of  the  crystallizable  strength,  and  therefore 
of  the  value  of  sugar. 

Mr.  MILLS.  Then  why  not  lay  the  duty  on  thd  value  of  sugar  and 
let  that  be  reached  by  the  polariscope  or  any  other  means  the  Sec- 
retary of  the  Treasury  may  adopt  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  The  Boston  dealers  asl^d  the  committee  to  adopt 
precisely  the  measure  which  my  friend  suggests,  and  that  will  be 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts,  [Mr.  Banks.]     They 


16 

proposed  that  the  duties  on  sugar  should  be  laid  on  the  percentage  of 
saccharine  strength  ;  for  instance,  1  per  cent,  of  saccharine  strength 
shoiild  pay  so  much,  and  2  per  cent,  twice 'as  much,  and  so  on  through 
all  the  grades,  to  he  tested  by  the  polariscope. 

Mr.  MILLS.     Then  the  polariscope  tests  the  value  of  sugar  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  Yes ;  and  theoretically  they  are  right.  But,  as 
a  matter  of  practice,  I  think,  and  this  was  the  opinion  of  most  of  the 
Committee  of  Ways  and  Means,  that  the  Boston  plan,would  make  the 
sugar  taritf  too  complicated,  for  there  would  be  one  cargo  having  a 
small  per  cent,  less  strength  than  another,  a  different  rate  of  duty. 
The  rates  would  be  too  numerous  and  complicated.  We  therefore  pre- 
ferred to  retain  the  existing  seven  grades  and  apply  the  polariscope 
to  them. 

Mr.  TUCKER.  The  gentleman  from  Ohio  has  spoken  of  the  char- 
acter of  the  polariscope  as  a  test,  and  says  it  is  a  test  of  the  quantity 
of  saccharine  matter.  Is  it  not  rather  a  test  of  the  crystallizable 
quality  of  the  sugar? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  My  colleague  is  right ;  I  should  have  used  the 
word  crystallizable.    That  is  the  language  of  my  amendment. 

Mr.  TUCKER.  Is  it  not  true  that  we  were  told  in  the  committee, 
so  far  from  its  being  a  test  of  the  quantity  of  sacchariue  matter,  that 
the  sugar  not  crystallizable  had  so  much  saccharine  matter  that  it 
"was  used  by  all  the  refiners  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  I  thank  my  colleague  ;  for  I  was  about  to  omit 
what,  if  left  out,  would  have  made  my  statement  incomplete.  The 
chief  element  of  value  in  sugar  is  sugar  crystals;  but  there  is  also 
another  element,  which  is  uncrystallizable,  but  still  sweet,  known  as 
glucose,  which  will  be  found  in  the  most  perfect  sugar  of  commerce. 
Glucose  is  not  deleterious,  is  sweetening,  and  is  found  in  all  sugar. 
The  chief  element,  and  that  with  which  we  are  mainly  concerned,  is 
of  course  the  crystal,  the  crystallized  sugar.  Therefore  in  our  bill 
we  apply  our  test  to  the  crystallizable  strength  of  sugar,  and  that  the 
polariscope  detects.  That  is  what  we  are  legislating  about ;  not  about 
glucose  and  other  elements  that  enter  into  sugar.  The  main  product 
is  crystallized  sugar,  and  that  is  perfectly  tested  by  the  polariscope. 

I  do  not  say  that  the  polariscope  is  a  perfect  test  in  every  respect ; 
but  I  say  in  the  present  stage  of  scientific  knowledge  it  is  the  best 
test  we  know.  It  is  approved  by  the  highest  science  and  by  the 
practical  experience  of  our  foremost  dealers  in  sugar. 

Mr.  BUTLER.     I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  a  question. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.    Very  well. 

Mr.  BUTLER.  I  ask  the  gentleman  if  the  polariscope  gives  any 
correct  test  of  melada,  the  lowest  grade  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.     It  do'es— of  its  crystallizable  strength. 

Mr.  BUTLER.     But  if  it  is  not  crystallized  ? 


17 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  The  melada  question  is  not  important,  for  it  pays 
a  specitic  dutj'  as  the  lav\  now  stands  ;  but  should  crystallizable  sugar 
be  brought  in  mixed  with  melada  it  would  be  tested  by  the  polari- 
scope.  I  believe  I  have  now  gone  over  the  main  points  in  this  dis- 
cussion. 

Mr.  EOBBINS.     I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  a  question. 

Mr.  GARFIELD.    Very  well. 

Mr.  ROBBINS.  There  are  no  other  means  but  the  polariscope  which 
can  be  applied  as  a  percentage  test,  except  chemical  analysis,  are 
there? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  Not  that  I  know  of.  I  ought  to  have  added  that 
"we  do  not  confine  the  Secretary  to  the  polariscope  alone.  We  author- 
ize him  to  employ  the  polariscope  or  such  other  test  as  he  may  find 
-necessary  to  determine  the  real  crystallizable  strength  of  sugar.  No 
■doubt  he  will  use  the  polariscope  ordinarily ;  but  if  there  is  any  doubt 
of  its  accuracy  in  any  important  case  he  can  employ  a  chemist  and 
make  a  chemical  analysis. 

Mr.  ROBBINS.  One  word  more.  The  chemical  analysis  test  is  too 
costly  for  general  use,  is  it  not  ? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  Oh,  yes;  it  would  be  too  cumbrous  and  costly  to 
be  used  ordinarily.  But  it  can  always  be  used  to  verify  the  polari- 
scope test  in  any  important  case. 

Mr.  ROBBINS.     But  who  is  to  know  that  any  correction  is  needed? 

Mr.  GARFIELD.  My  friend  in  that  question  has  taken  up  the 
conflict  of  ages.  Who  shall  do  anything  except  the  men  appointed 
to  carry  out  the  law  ?  Who  shall  find  out  any  blunder  or  correct  any 
wrong  unless  you  appoint  somebody  to  do  it?  Congress,  I  take  it, 
can  hardly  determine  the  sweetness  or  strength  of  sugar  or  the  amount 
of  glucose  in  it  unless  we  appoint  an  agent.  The  Treasury  cannot  do 
it  except  by  its  agents.  In  any  system  there  will  be  the  trouble  sug- 
gested by  the  gentleman  from  North  Carolina. 

In  conclusion,  Mr.  Speaker,  I  do  not  want  Congress  to  tinker  with 
the  tariff  at  this  time.  That  was  attempted  last  year;  and  in  the 
remarks  I  made  on  that  occasion  I  denounced  the  sugar  clause  of  the 
bill  then  introduced,  because  while  there  was  a  reduction  of  the  rate 
on  most  northern  interests,  the  rate  on  sugar  was  increased  consider- 
ably, even  up  to  70  per  cent.  I  say,  therefore,  let  us  not  undertake  to 
change  tlie  tariff  rates  in  this  closing  week  of  the  session.  But  when 
the  Administration  tells  us  that  four  or  five  millions  of  revenue  are 
being  lost,  let  us  provide  the  means  they  want  to  protect  the  Gov- 
ernment against  undervaluation  and  loss. 

O 

2   GAR 


r 


476428 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


